When the SAG Awards nominations were announced this year, they got widely criticized for not having seen all of the eligible 2015 movies before casting their ballots.

Likewise, the Critics’ Choice Awards just agreed to allow “Star Wars” into their Best Picture lineup after previously announcing their nominees before seeing the film.

Call me old school, but if an award show’s eligibility period is the 2015 calendar year, shouldn’t they wait until January 2016 — at the earliest — to reveal their nominees? That way every film released within the year has an equal shot.

Yes because if you’re judging the best of the calendar year on film, surely you should wait until the actual end of that year to make your choices.

On the other hand, if everyone waits there would be a huge onslaught, and wouldn’t all the ceremonies be later on to fit in the rounds of voting? I like the current calendar of it all ending March at the latest. I wouldn’t be keen on it going in longer, as much as I love it. It just takes up a fair amount of time already.

But would anyone really care about SAG as an organization and take seriously as an independent voting body if it weren’t for their overlap and correlation between the Academy?

Do you think Viola Davis cared about ”the Actor” she won for The Help after she lost the Oscar to Meryl Streep?Or was Tommy Lee Jones(Lincoln) happy about the fact that he won the SAG in a category where his main rival wasn’t even nominated? No. He wasn’t even in the ceremony to accept his award because he knew it wouldn’t have mattered in the end, anyway.

Being the rehearsal of The Oscars and start to heat up things a month ago is the only thing that SAG is good for.Pushing them to the January and announcing them in the mean time as Oscars would kill the meaning of that and they would be like the inferior little step-sister of AMPAS. Nah. At least, thanks to them, we have something to discuss now, in December.But I would still very much support this idea, just to see what all those other sheep award bodies(HFPA, BFJA) would do without a cheat sheet to take a glance at.

And let’s not fool ourselves. The problem is not ”seeing all of the eligible movies” it’s about seeing the wrong ones. It’s about seeing Woman in Gold instead of 45 Years.It’s about name-checking Helen Mirren whenever you see her name.It’s actors voting for actors. And you can’t force them to see a movie they are simply not interested to see.The Big Short was just as late release as Creed, The Revenant and Joy and still got nominated in 2 different category.

No. Why should awards season be moved and not film releases? If films want to be part of the conversation, they should damn well release during the conversation. Has always been like that. Why should people always cry foul when things don’t go their way? And there is nothing wrong with this years SAG nominations. It is the most diverse and non-populist batch of nominations EVER! Awards are objective. If a few of your favourites didn’t make it in, they obviously werent on their radar or taste. Beasts of No Nation, Straight Outta Compton and The Big Short deserve their nominations.

Ha. Sorry. I thought we were only talking about SAG awards. But I guess, the things I’ve mentioned above are also valid for other award shows as well.

No. Why should awards season be moved and not film releases? If films want to be part of the conversation, they should damn well release during the conversation. Has always been like that. Why should people always cry foul when things don’t go their way? And there is nothing wrong with this years SAG nominations. It is the most diverse and non-populist batch of nominations EVER! Awards are objective. If a few of your favourites didn’t make it in, they obviously werent on their radar or taste. Beasts of No Nation, Straight Outta Compton and The Big Short deserve their nominations.

I couldn’t agree with this more. I want them to be as independent as possible with their choices hence why I’m very pleased to see some inspiring nominations such as Sarah Silverman’s.But this is Helen Mirren we’re talking about. Someone they have awarded 5 times before. I think I could be forgiven for blindly assuming her name recognition triumphs other’s performances regardless of her quality of work.

It’s supposed to be the year’s best (in this case 2015) of film. Why should a film be penalized for releasing late in the year of 2015? It’s still a viable contender because it was released during this year…so why penalize it for that? Pretty hypocritical/ironic. I’m all for them announcing the first week of January, the week before the Oscars.

Of course they should! Or better have them all announce their nominations after Oscar nominations are announced! Then they would nominate what they like and not try to predict what will win Oscars. And one other brilliant idea, have good movies released throughout the whole year not the end of December. All the movies released in December should be excluded from Oscar consideration and eligible next year. Make it interesting and fair.

Maybe, just maybe, they liked Helen’s performance? They shouldn’t move the nominations. If Star Wars wanted to be in the conversation then it should have set up screenings or mailed out screeners.

^Just like how they liked Nicole Kidman’s performance in Grace of Monaco?

Really, you can make an argument for nearly all performances on all the movies in the past year if you want; but one could wonder why these out of the field nominations always happens to the well-known names? It happened to Naomi Watts last year. Then again, good performance in an okay movie. But did she get nominated because of her perf. or did her visibility increase after appearing in Birdman? It was Maggie Smith two years ago. SAG was the only big place that have nominated her; then again, was she nominated because she played Ms.Donnelly or because she was Maggie Smith?Why we always see names like this and never someone like Essie Davis for The Babadook for example, if it’s really about discovering the underdog that no one talks about?